Effective measures have been taken in the last few years to
raise the living standards of low-income groups to prevent society
from becoming further polarized.
What is more important, however, is to improve the status of the
disadvantaged groups in the market and give opportunities for
development, in addition to earmarking more money to subsidize
their livelihood.
Short of this, their vulnerable positions cannot be
improved.
At the very core of opportunities is the opportunity to make a
living. The opportunity to make a living exists nowhere but in the
"social ecological system" as I call it.
Here is an example. A couple living in the old inner city of
Shanghai can easily make a living by selling 100 boiled eggs per
day. But when they move into the Pudong area across the Huangpu
River, they can barely sell 20 eggs a day. Their livelihood is now
at issue.
This demonstrates how important this kind of "social ecological
system" is to the survival of the poor.
However, the matter of improving this system has gone largely
unheeded in recent years in the process of urbanization.
In the pursuit of making their cities more beautiful, some local
governments ban eateries and food stalls that are nothing but scars
in their eyes.
At the same time, shantytowns in some cities are bulldozed to
make way for large squares, beautiful lawns and grand buildings.
Amidst this kind of construction boom, one thing is ignored: The
shantytowns are where the poor secure a place in life.
In recent years, conflicts between urban administrative
personnel and street vendors without business licenses have become
increasingly frequent.
As a matter of fact, street vending has always been an important
means of eking out a living for the disadvantaged.
On the other hand, the development of the city puts higher
requirements on environment and appearance. Also, urban development
demands better order in the city.
All this is bound to intensify the friction between urban
management and the poor attempting to make a living.
But the conflicts can be and should be settled by effective
management, rather than at the expense of the rights of the
disadvantaged.
Employment constitutes an even more important factor in
improving the positions of the disadvantaged.
The Chinese population increased by 140 million between 1992 and
2006. And more than 100 million people came of employment age
during that time.
These new laborers either joined the contingent of the
unemployed or are absorbed by the euphemistically termed "flexible
employment" such as vending and odd jobs.
As a result, large numbers of the unemployed, half-employed and
"flexibly employed" have emerged alongside regular employment. This
is a new phenomenon in the country's labor market, worth our
attention.
The lives of these irregularly employed people are extremely
vulnerable in the absence of a guaranteed income source and social
security.
At present, many factors are restricting the improvement of the
"social ecological system" for the disadvantaged groups.
For example, high taxes on small businesses, poor management
policy and the high threshold of monetary services make it
extremely difficult for the disadvantaged to enter the channel of
regular employment or to set up lawful businesses, no matter how
small they are.
Since China formally joined the World Trade Organization in late
2001, foreign capital has been pouring into the country at an
accelerated pace. New factories and buildings keep springing up
across the country. As a result, large numbers of farmers have lost
land and entered the cities as workers.
They have thus become part of the world labor force in the
context of globalization.
But these farmers-turned-city-workers are still in a
disadvantaged status, in no position to bargain for benefits. Some
observers predict that farmers and farmers-turned-urban-workers
will find themselves in an increasingly disadvantaged position or
further marginalized against the background of accelerated
globalization.
In this scenario, they will find it hard to gain benefits even
in the face of favorable market conditions.
For instance, the grain price rose sharply in the latter half of
2006, which normally benefits farmers. But in reality, farmers
benefited very little. Some researchers remarked that farmers were
absent from the interest sharing.
According to media reports, every link in the grain market
enjoyed considerable profit as a result of the price hike. But
farmers, as the producers of grain, shared only 15 to 20 percent of
the profits.
The price hike came, with the alleged manipulation of China
Grain Reserves Corporation, in November. The purchase of grain from
farmers was completed by the latter half of October.
Monopolizing the grain source, the corporation reaped fat
profits.
From this, we can see that farmers' maneuvering capability to
win themselves benefits from the market was extremely weak.
(China Daily June 12, 2007)